[Python-Dev] Bug in PyErr_WriteUnraisable ?

2007-02-25 Thread Gabriel Becedillas
I'd hit an access violation inside PyErr_WriteUnraisable when a non-exception instance was raised. The call to PyExceptionClass_Name with a non-exception instance is yielding an invalid pointer. We are embedding Python 2.5 and a string instance is raised using PyThreadState_SetAsyncExc. I can

[Python-Dev] Embedded Python:: C/Python: Is Py_Finalize() necessary between embedded function calls?

2007-02-25 Thread Sydney Pang
Hi, I am developing an application where I have Python embedded in C functions using the C/Python API to execute commands. My question stems from my need to preserve a PyObject to pass between these Python embedded C functions. My question is: do I have to call Py_Finalize() at the end of each

Re: [Python-Dev] Embedded Python:: C/Python: Is Py_Finalize() necessary between embedded function calls?

2007-02-25 Thread Oleg Broytmann
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 04:24:19AM -0800, Sydney Pang wrote: do I have to call Py_Finalize() at the end of each Python embedded C function? As far I understand you only need to call Py_Initialize() and Py_Finalize() once per every embedded interpreter, not for an every function. Oleg. --

Re: [Python-Dev] Bug in PyErr_WriteUnraisable ?

2007-02-25 Thread Brett Cannon
On 2/22/07, Gabriel Becedillas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd hit an access violation inside PyErr_WriteUnraisable when a non-exception instance was raised. The call to PyExceptionClass_Name with a non-exception instance is yielding an invalid pointer. We are embedding Python 2.5 and a string

[Python-Dev] dinner at Standard in Dallas

2007-02-25 Thread Jeremy Hylton
I'm organizing a trip to Standard in downtown Dallas for dinner tonight (Sunday night). It's about a 10 minute cab ride to Standard. We can share cabs and get there without too much trouble. The restaurant is on the expensive side. I'm thinking we should leave from the hotal around 6:30pm.

[Python-Dev] Python-3000 upgrade path

2007-02-25 Thread Thomas Wouters
I'm sending this to python-dev instead of python-3000 for two reasons: It's not about features to be added to Python 3.0, and it's not really about 3.0at all -- it's about 2.6 and later. It's about how we get Python 2.x to 3.0, and howmuch of 3.0we put into 2.6 and later. So here at PyCon, Guido

[Python-Dev] status of switch to Roundup off of SF

2007-02-25 Thread Brett Cannon
When I gave the PSF members an update on the work to move the python-dev tracker over to Roundup Andrew Kuchling asked me to also send an email to python-dev since October/November. As of right now the biggest thing holding up the transition is documentation. A doc needs to get written

[Python-Dev] dinner at Standard in Dallas

2007-02-25 Thread Jeremy Hylton
I'm organizing a trip to Standard in downtown Dallas for dinner tonight (Sunday night). It's about a 10 minute cab ride to Standard. We can share cabs and get there without too much trouble. The restaurant is on the expensive side. I'm thinking we should leave from the hotal around 6:30pm.

Re: [Python-Dev] Python-3000 upgrade path

2007-02-25 Thread Neal Norwitz
On 2/25/07, Thomas Wouters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's about how we get Python 2.x to 3.0, and howmuch of 3.0 we put into 2.6 and later. I've also talked to a bunch of people at PyCon, including Thomas. There seems to be much concern (rightfully so!) about the upgrade path from 2.x to 3.x.

Re: [Python-Dev] bool conversion wart?

2007-02-25 Thread Greg Ewing
Guido van Rossum wrote: How would this change be helpful? I'm utterly mystified by these suggestions that bool would be more useful if it didn't behave like an int in arithmetic. I think there's a desire by some people to get rid of unnecessary conceptual baggage left over for historical

Re: [Python-Dev] Python-3000 upgrade path

2007-02-25 Thread Neil Schemenauer
Neal Norwitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The time schedules in PEP 361 (2.6 release schedule) and what Guido has said for 3k (from what I remember) are roughly: April 2007 - 3.0 PEPs and features accepted/decided June 2007 - 3.0a1 - basic (most) features implemented Any talk at PyCon

Re: [Python-Dev] Python-3000 upgrade path

2007-02-25 Thread Neal Norwitz
On 2/25/07, Neil Schemenauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Neal Norwitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The time schedules in PEP 361 (2.6 release schedule) and what Guido has said for 3k (from what I remember) are roughly: April 2007 - 3.0 PEPs and features accepted/decided June 2007 - 3.0a1 -

Re: [Python-Dev] Python-3000 upgrade path

2007-02-25 Thread Thomas Wouters
Just the it's not there yet part :) There's some prototype code and email conversations archived, but no recent work that I'm aware of. On 2/25/07, Neil Schemenauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Neal Norwitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The time schedules in PEP 361 (2.6 release schedule) and what

Re: [Python-Dev] Python-3000 upgrade path

2007-02-25 Thread Guido van Rossum
On 2/25/07, Neal Norwitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/25/07, Neil Schemenauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any talk at PyCon regarding the new IO system? That looks like the biggest piece of unfinished Py3k work. AFAIK, there hasn't been any work on the new IO system or str/unicode

Re: [Python-Dev] Python-3000 upgrade path

2007-02-25 Thread Neil Schemenauer
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 05:37:08PM -0600, Guido van Rossum wrote: Right. To be honest, I consider the str/unicode unification a much bigger project than the new I/O library. I was more concerned about IO because it would seem to require your time for design work. The str/unicode work could be

Re: [Python-Dev] Python-3000 upgrade path

2007-02-25 Thread Guido van Rossum
On 2/25/07, Neil Schemenauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 05:37:08PM -0600, Guido van Rossum wrote: Right. To be honest, I consider the str/unicode unification a much bigger project than the new I/O library. I was more concerned about IO because it would seem to require

Re: [Python-Dev] Renaming Include/object.h

2007-02-25 Thread Jeremy Hylton
On 1/3/07, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In #1626545, Anton Tropashko requests that object.h should be renamed, because it causes conflicts with other software. I would like to comply with this requests for 2.6, assuming there shouldn't be many problems with existing software as